FIRE AT HCM: INCIDENT OR LETHAL BLEANUP BY THE MINISTRY?

Paulo Vilanculo"

The expression in the title, “incident or lethal cleansing of the Ministry,” should not be interpreted as an accusation that the fire was deliberately started to eliminate documents, hide irregularities, or erase responsibilities. The metaphor of lethal cleansing raises a relevant question: are we facing a simple incident or yet another episode that demands a thorough investigation into the operating conditions and oversight mechanisms of public institutions? Could the scale of the disaster end up becoming a smokescreen over administrative failures, management problems, and possible oversight omissions that need to be investigated? Who is responsible for the vulnerability of a hospital infrastructure of this size?

The fire that broke out in the Oncology Department of Maputo Central Hospital (HCM) cannot be treated merely as another emergency incident in a public infrastructure. According to information released by the media, the upper part of the building was consumed by the flames, while the intervention of firefighters prevented the fire from reaching other areas, including the radiotherapy unit. In a country where access to specialized cancer treatment already represents a challenge for thousands of families, the destruction of facilities of this nature constitutes a setback that goes beyond material losses. What makes this incident particularly worrying is the fact that the fire affected the Oncology Department, an area of ​​high specialization and strategic importance to the national health system. When flames reach a national reference hospital unit, particularly a service dedicated to the diagnosis and treatment of oncological diseases, the fire ceases to be merely a matter of walls, equipment, and facilities consumed, but rather becomes a matter of public interest, institutional responsibility, and trust in the State's ability to protect the lives of citizens.

The Ministry of Health should not limit its officials' visits to the site to simply offering messages of solidarity or promising to repair the facilities. The circumstances of the fire are concerning, not only for the preservation of human lives, but should also not close the debate about the causes and responsibilities for what happened. This begins with preventive maintenance, inspection of electrical installations, availability of firefighting equipment, the existence of evacuation plans, and the regular conduct of drills and safety audits. If these mechanisms existed, it is important to know if they were up-to-date and if they functioned. If they did not exist or were insufficient, it is important to identify who failed in their implementation. It is also important to acknowledge that the preservation of the cobalt source and the removal of equipment considered essential, according to information released by government sources, constitute positive news.

However, a technical assessment of its functionality after exposure to heat and flames remains indispensable. We are talking about patients whose survival depends on the continuity of treatments, equipment whose acquisition and maintenance require substantial investments, and professionals working in a sector where every interruption can have serious consequences for human life. Radiological safety, the recovery of services, and the continuity of treatments must be demonstrated through specialized assessments, and not just reassuring statements. The statement by the Minister of Health, Ussene Isse, considering the fire a major setback for the country, acknowledges the magnitude of the problem. However, acknowledging the setback is not the same as explaining its causes.

The danger lies not only in what the fire destroyed, but also in the possibility of the narrative of the tragedy replacing the search for truth. The public needs to know when the last safety inspection of the building was carried out, whether there were reports on electrical or structural anomalies, what the fire prevention mechanisms were, and whether previous technical recommendations were actually followed. It is equally necessary to clarify the extent of the damage, the fate of the affected equipment, and the conditions under which treatment will be provided to patients transferred to other wards. There is also an issue that cannot be overlooked: transparency in the management of public resources allocated to reconstruction and the restoration of services. The fire at the HCM should, therefore, be the starting point for an independent, technically credible, and publicly monitored investigation. The presence of authorities in an emergency situation is necessary, but governmental responsibility begins long before the flames break out.

It is not enough to identify where the fire started; it is necessary to determine why it spread, what safety conditions existed, and whether there was negligence, non-compliance with regulations, or management failures. The results must be disclosed, responsibilities individualized when justified, and corrective measures presented with concrete deadlines. It is worth remembering that a fire consumed a large part of the headquarters building of the Ministry of Agriculture on May 25, 2007, in Maputo. At the time, the fire destroyed more than 50 offices, including those of the Minister, the Deputy Minister, the Administration and Finance department, and the controversial Agricultural Development Program (PROAGRI), raising concerns about the loss of thousands of documents and computer equipment. A government inquiry commission pointed to a short circuit as the cause of the fire. However, the building would suffer a second fire in September 2008, and the press even raised suspicions of the possible burning of archives, especially since the financial sectors were among the most affected.

If, in 2007, the question was whether the fire at the Ministry of Agriculture had also consumed evidence of controversial management, in 2026 the question is whether the fire at the Oncology Department of Maputo Central Hospital will be investigated to the fullest extent or whether it will be reduced to just another episode of official lamentations and promises of reconstruction. It cannot be stated that the two fires had the same origin or purpose, but the repetition of these tragedies demands that the State demonstrate that it has learned from the past. It is precisely within this institutional memory that the fire at Maputo Central Hospital takes on a worrying historical and political dimension, and Mozambique seems to be confronting once again with a large-scale incident in a strategic public infrastructure, bringing into question the security of state buildings, the preservation of documents, oversight, and the accountability of managers.

The question is not only who extinguished the flames, or who will rebuild, but who should have prevented them from reaching the point of consuming such vital infrastructure. A hospital cannot operate on the logic of only putting out administrative fires after real fires have destroyed public property. The institution must acknowledge failures in prevention, maintenance, or oversight; rebuilding walls and replacing equipment will not be enough: it will be necessary to hold those involved accountable and reform hospital management and safety mechanisms. Because the State not only loses assets but also risks the trust of citizens and the continuity of lives that depend on its services. And the greatest tragedy would be to allow the truth to disappear after the smoke clears.

2025/12/3